This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .

Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.

Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.

Markdown

Appears as

*italics* or _italics_

italics

**bold** or __bold__

bold

- bulleted - list

bulleted

list

1. numbered 2. list

numbered

list

Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly

We define mass of moving particle with velocity $v$ as

$\displaystyle m = \dfrac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }}$

Where $m_0$ is the rest mass of the particle.

It is not possible for a particle(matter) to attain speed greater than or equal to speed of light because in that case mass of particle will not be
defined(or imaginary).

Nothing can exceed the velocity of light in accordance to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, except $tachyons$, according modern theoretical particle physics.

I don't know how far along you are in physics, so I will be explicit about all my assumptions.

Let's consider a photon and a free electron traveling along in space.

The initial energy of this system is given by the sum of the energy of the photon and the electron:

$E_i = E_\gamma + E_{i}$

and the final energy is given by $E_f = E_{f}$ (since the photon no longer exists after absorption)

$E_\gamma = E_{f} - E_{i}$

Conservation of momentum should hold as well, and we have $E_\gamma/c + p_{i}= p_{f}$ , or

$E_\gamma = c\left(p_{f}-p_{i}\right)$

since the momentum of a photon is given by its energy divided by the speed of light. This was shown experimentally by measuring the deflection of very thing gold sheets by incoming light beams.

If we set the two forms for $E_\gamma$ equal, we find

$p_{f}-p_{i} = \frac{E_f - E_i}{c}$

Now, the kinetic energy of a moving particle is given by $E(p) = \sqrt{{m_{0}}^2c^4 + p^2c^2}$ which is a convex function of the momentum $p$, i.e. $\displaystyle\frac{E(p_f) - E(p_i)}{c} \geq p_f - p_i$ with equality holding when $p_f=p_i$.

Therefore it is impossible to have $c\left(p_{f}-p_{i}\right) = E_{f} - E_{i}$, except when $p_i = p_f$, in other words when there is no photon absorbed.

Thank You sir for giving your time to comment. Just a thing I wanted to ask, is $E = mc^{2}$ incomplete? I guess for that reason alone you used the extended form of Einstein's Equation with relativistic momentum.

I originally started with $E=mc^2$ but found the argument less straightforward than the above. It isn't incomplete, it's just that people often use it one way or another without specifying what they're really talking about. In many places, you'll see $E=mc^2$ where the person really means $E=m_0c^2$, so they're talking about the rest energy, but they drop the zero subscript.

If we really mean $mc^2$, i.e. $m$ is not the rest mass, but is the relativistic mass, then $E=mc^2$ is the whole story. To see this, consider:

If you want to be a theoretical physicist I would start thinking about problems you'd really like to know the answers to. There are a huge number of things to potentially study in theoretical physics, from particles, to the cosmos, to the physics of living systems. But no matter problems what you end up interested in, I would suggest learning your mechanics from Kleppner and Kolenkov.

@Josh Silverman
–
Sir, I just saw the book suggested by you and found it really helpful. Currently I am a ninth grader. Shall I learn trigonometry and calculus first and then proceed to the book?
Also, Please tell me how to learn calculus at this age of 14 , or if any book can help me.
Thanks!

Show that total relativistic energy and momentum are not simultaneously conserved if such a thing happens. Since these laws cannot be violated it is not possible for a electron to completely absorb a photon.

Easy Math Editor

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in`\(`

...`\)`

or`\[`

...`\]`

to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestBy conservation of momentum

$\displaystyle \dfrac{h}{\lambda } = m_e v$

$\implies$$\displaystyle \lambda = \dfrac{h}{m_e v}$ ........ (1)

Where 'v' is velocity of electron after absorbing photon and $m_e$ mass of electron

By conservation of energy

$\displaystyle \dfrac{hc}{\lambda } = \frac{1}{2} m_e v^2$ ........ (2)

Substituting value of $\lambda$ from equation (1) in (2)

$\displaystyle m_e vc = \frac{1}{2} m_e v^2$

From here we get

$\displaystyle v = 0$

Or

$\displaystyle v = 2c$

For the first one absorbing a photon and remain stationary is not possible (here in the case of "free" electron)

And clearly second one is not at all possible.

Log in to reply

why $v=2c$ is impossible ?

Also what is your status mean ? " 272 worth anything ? " @Krishna Sharma

Log in to reply

We define mass of moving particle with velocity $v$ as

$\displaystyle m = \dfrac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2} }}$

Where $m_0$ is the rest mass of the particle.

It is not possible for a particle(matter) to attain speed greater than or equal to speed of light because in that case mass of particle will not be defined(or imaginary).

Log in to reply

Okay if It is not define , what happen , what occure that we can't define practically particle having speed greater than light ?

I guess whole mass will convert into Energy .. Am I right ?

Still you did not tell that what your status mean ? Is it your JEE _ Mains marks ?

Log in to reply

Nothing can exceed the velocity of light in accordance to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, except $tachyons$, according modern theoretical particle physics.

Log in to reply

In $\left(2\right)$, shouldn't you have $hc/\lambda + m_e(0)c^2 = \frac12 m_e(v)v^2$?

Log in to reply

Hi Swapnil,

I don't know how far along you are in physics, so I will be explicit about all my assumptions.

Let's consider a photon and a free electron traveling along in space.

The initial energy of this system is given by the sum of the energy of the photon and the electron:

$E_i = E_\gamma + E_{i}$

and the final energy is given by $E_f = E_{f}$ (since the photon no longer exists after absorption)

$E_\gamma = E_{f} - E_{i}$

Conservation of momentum should hold as well, and we have $E_\gamma/c + p_{i}= p_{f}$ , or

$E_\gamma = c\left(p_{f}-p_{i}\right)$

since the momentum of a photon is given by its energy divided by the speed of light. This was shown experimentally by measuring the deflection of very thing gold sheets by incoming light beams.

If we set the two forms for $E_\gamma$ equal, we find

$p_{f}-p_{i} = \frac{E_f - E_i}{c}$

Now, the kinetic energy of a moving particle is given by $E(p) = \sqrt{{m_{0}}^2c^4 + p^2c^2}$ which is a convex function of the momentum $p$, i.e. $\displaystyle\frac{E(p_f) - E(p_i)}{c} \geq p_f - p_i$ with equality holding when $p_f=p_i$.

Therefore it is impossible to have $c\left(p_{f}-p_{i}\right) = E_{f} - E_{i}$, except when $p_i = p_f$, in other words when there is no photon absorbed.

Log in to reply

Thank You sir for giving your time to comment. Just a thing I wanted to ask, is $E = mc^{2}$ incomplete? I guess for that reason alone you used the extended form of Einstein's Equation with relativistic momentum.

Log in to reply

I originally started with $E=mc^2$ but found the argument less straightforward than the above. It isn't incomplete, it's just that people often use it one way or another without specifying what they're really talking about. In many places, you'll see $E=mc^2$ where the person really means $E=m_0c^2$, so they're talking about the rest energy, but they drop the zero subscript.

If we really mean $mc^2$, i.e. $m$ is not the rest mass, but is the relativistic mass, then $E=mc^2$ is the whole story. To see this, consider:

$\begin{aligned} E &= mc^2 \\ &= \frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}c^2 \\ E^2 &= m_0^2\frac{c^4}{1-v^2/c^2} \\ E^2 &= m_0^2c^4 + E^2v^2/c^2 \end{aligned}$

Now, using $E=mc^2$ on the right side again, we get

$E^2 = m_0^2c^4 + m^2v^2c^2$

But $p = mv$, so finally we have

$E^2 = m_0^2c^4+p^2c^2$

Log in to reply

Sir, I am an aspiring Theoretical physicist. Could you please advice me some techniques which would make me even stronger in physics? Thank You!

Log in to reply

If you want to be a theoretical physicist I would start thinking about problems you'd really like to know the answers to. There are a huge number of things to potentially study in theoretical physics, from particles, to the cosmos, to the physics of living systems. But no matter problems what you end up interested in, I would suggest learning your mechanics from Kleppner and Kolenkov.

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Log in to reply

Show that total relativistic energy and momentum are not simultaneously conserved if such a thing happens. Since these laws cannot be violated it is not possible for a electron to completely absorb a photon.

Log in to reply

@Sudeep Salgia @Nishant Rai Thank U for commenting!

Log in to reply

@John Muradeli

Log in to reply

I have no clue.

But it seems they have figured it out, in terms of energy and momentum conservations.

Log in to reply

@Josh Silverman Please help with your guidance!

Log in to reply

OK if there are no answers I like by tonight, I'll weigh in! Thanks for asking me @Swapnil Das

Log in to reply